The two officers who were terminated dispute that the threats were made. An attorney representing them in their efforts to be reinstated told CBS 6: "Unfortunately, the termination of the self-proclaimed 'whistleblower' does nothing to remedy the fact that his false allegations resulted in the termination of two officers. Their careers were ended and they have gone through eight months of hell."

So everyone was fired. And we are supposed to feel bad for the guys that wanted to "take a couple of shots . . ." and that another voice in the background talked about planting a bomb under the stage.? Sorry, I disliked Bush, but I never wanted him shot or killed.

Anytime you fire an officer for reporting real criminal actions of other officers, you reinforce that police do not follow the same laws. This creates both a chilling effect on whistleblowers and a free license for officers to get out of hand.

rev. dave:Anytime you fire an officer for reporting real criminal actions of other officers, you reinforce that police do not follow the same laws. This creates both a chilling effect on whistleblowers and a free license for officers to get out of hand.

PreMortem:Whatever he got fired for it wasn't whistleblowing, and the POS article doesn't say.

Actually, it does say:

The officer told a CBS 6 reporter that on Tuesday he was terminated from the department, later learning that it was because of his interview with CBS, which the department said was in violation of its policy.

So he was fired because he gave an interview about his whistle-blowing.

penthesilea:FlashHarry: what kind of sick farking cop threatens the president?

I'm guessing that there just may be some racist cops out there.

I couldn't find any motivation cited in the article, racist or otherwise. What leads you to believe it was racially motivated? Or are you just one of those people who thinks any criticism of a person of color is because racism?

I have a second cousin, originally from southwest Missouri, who became a cop, and is currently with the Arkansas State Highway Patrol.. I've heard indirectly through my sister that he's said some pretty nasty things about President Obama.

I couldn't find any motivation cited in the article, racist or otherwise. What leads you to believe it was racially motivated? Or are you just one of those people who thinks any criticism of a person of color is because racism?

When someone threatens the POTUS, and he's not only the first one of color, but also the most centrist, mild, and scandal-free president we've ever had.. very few other motivations come to mind.

rev. dave:Anytime you fire an officer for reporting real criminal actions of other officers, you reinforce that police do not follow the same laws. This creates both a chilling effect on whistleblowers and a free license for officers to get out of hand.

TFA: The officer told a CBS 6 reporter that on Tuesday he was terminated from the department, later learning that it was because of his interview with CBS, which the department said was in violation of its policy.

I'm not cop defender, but the guy was fired for giving an interview to the press, not for being a whistleblower.

PreMortem:Pretty sure you can't be fired for reporting what could be an assassination attempt on the president.

Whatever he got fired for it wasn't whistleblowing, and the POS article doesn't say.

You have a truly dizzying intellect. RTFA again, Sparky.

Babwa Wawa:rev. dave: Anytime you fire an officer for reporting real criminal actions of other officers, you reinforce that police do not follow the same laws. This creates both a chilling effect on whistleblowers and a free license for officers to get out of hand.'\TFA: The officer told a CBS 6 reporter that on Tuesday he was terminated from the department, later learning that it was because of his interview with CBS, which the department said was in violation of its policy.

I'm not cop defender, but the guy was fired for giving an interview to the press, not for being a whistleblower.

I'm not a lawyer, and I don't know what protections state or local government employees have, but I'm pretty sure that if this cop were a federal employee, that distinction would be completely irrelevant under the Whistleblower Protection Act.

rev. dave:Anytime you fire an officer for reporting real criminal actions of other officers, you reinforce that police do not follow the same laws. This creates both a chilling effect on whistleblowers and a free license for officers to get out of hand.

Z-clipped:TFA: The officer told a CBS 6 reporter that on Tuesday he was terminated from the department, later learning that it was because of his interview with CBS, which the department said was in violation of its policy.

I'm not cop defender, but the guy was fired for giving an interview to the press, not for being a whistleblower.

I'm not a lawyer, and I don't know what protections state or local government employees have, but I'm pretty sure that if this cop were a federal employee, that distinction would be completely irrelevant under the Whistleblower Protection Act.

You're right, you're obviously not a lawyer. He was fired for violating a department policy - No interviews to the press. That does indeed mean that the reason he was fired has nothing to do with whistleblowing. If department policy is that rigid, he could have gone and talked to the press about the weather and still been fired. The fact that he was talking about his whistleblowing has nothing to do with why he got canned.

I'm not cop defender, but the guy was fired for giving an interview to the press, not for being a whistleblower.

Oh, and apparently Virginia has its own statute for state employees that looks, in my layman's opinion, like this cop has a clear cut case against his department.

And, according to the statute you linked to, ""Appropriate authority" means a federal or state agency or organization having jurisdictionover criminal law enforcement, regulatory violations, professional conduct or ethics, or abuse; or a member, officer, agent, representative, or supervisory employee of the agency or organization. The term also includes the Office of the Attorney General, the Office of the State Inspector General, and the General Assembly and its committees having the power and duty to investigate criminal law enforcement, regulatory violations, professional conduct or ethics, or abuse."

LeoffDaGrate:He was fired for violating a department policy - No interviews to the press.

Here's the thing. It's very easy for me to believe that the firing 'for violating a department policy' is a legal smokescreen for the real, underlying act of retaliation. Way too easy. That's the problem.

should a LEO snap and pull that trigger at POTUS we'll know why co-workers kept their mouth shut. something tells me this fellow talked to his upline and not a damn thing was done about it. there was another LEO (ex-LEO) who had whistleblower problems just a week or two ago but he went up in smoke.

MooseUpNorth:LeoffDaGrate: He was fired for violating a department policy - No interviews to the press.

Here's the thing. It's very easy for me to believe that the firing 'for violating a department policy' is a legal smokescreen for the real, underlying act of retaliation. Way too easy. That's the problem.

Oh, obviously. The Department are being dicks and retaliating in any way they can. I didn't say it was ethically right or that I agreed with it, just that, legally, what they did wasn't wrong. It's like if you were biatching about the boss while jaywalking. Hardly anyone gets arrested for jaywalking, yet on that particular day your boss happens to be standing with a cop buddy of his on the corner...

It's clear the cop got fired for going to the press, not for whistleblowing. If he had indeed reported it to the proper authorities in the chain of command, then there was probably an active investigation. What are cops supposed to say to the media about an active investigation? "No comment." You leave that to the department spokesperson. If he hadn't reported it to the chain of command, well, then he's just an AW.

Farce-Side:It's clear the cop got fired for going to the press, not for whistleblowing. If he had indeed reported it to the proper authorities in the chain of command, then there was probably an active investigation. What are cops supposed to say to the media about an active investigation? "No comment." You leave that to the department spokesperson. If he hadn't reported it to the chain of command, well, then he's just an AW.

He should have gone to the secret service instead.

"Investigations" that involve other cops have a tendency to go nowhere.

LeoffDaGrate:He was fired for violating a department policy - No interviews to the press.

That may or may not be relevant. The department can make any policy it wants, but that policy doesn't override state law. If the law gives him the right to redress for discrimination or termination, and the policy specifically inhibits his ability to report wrongdoing, the policy has no bearing.

LeoffDaGrate:And, according to the statute you linked to, ""Appropriate authority" means a federal or state agency or organization having jurisdictionover criminal law enforcement, regulatory violations, professional conduct or ethics, or abuse; or a member, officer, agent, representative, or supervisory employee of the agency or organization. The term also includes the Office of the Attorney General, the Office of the State Inspector General, and the General Assembly and its committees having the power and duty to investigate criminal law enforcement, regulatory violations, professional conduct or ethics, or abuse."

You could be right, though I can't personally say how proscriptive that definition is considered, legally. If you have reason to believe it is, I'm willing to listen. But as I see it, if he can show that he had a good reason for going to the media instead of one of the named bodies, it may not matter. Either way, it's a fact of the case, and so would be decided in court. I doubt it would affect his ability to bring the suit. Without specific professional knowledge of VA state law, I don't think we can conclude anything definite about the outcome, should he bring it.

Not at all a symptom of a system that discourages you from reporting when fellow LEO's break the law.

If you think otherwise you are a radical cop hater.

Usually, I'd be right there with you. But in this case, you have a cop who's allegedly trying to do the one thing that would actually HELP our police situation: hold his Brothers in Blue to the same standard of behavior and integrity as the rest of us. I think that positive outweighs the two asshole cops in the story by a factor of about a brazillion. Too bad he received the traditional reward reserved for being one of the few good cops out there.

Just one thing. You don't have to be racist to hate Obama. You can hate him on his actions alone. Not because of his race.

That sounds racist.

Damn! And I was so trying to make it NOT sound racist......hmm, I'll try again. Can we hate his policies and executive orders and his liberal spending agenda and NOT be racist? How can we hate him and not be racist? Ahhh.... can I hate the White half of him and not be racist?

There are a lot of allegations tossed around here and not a lot of evidence. Relying on one person's say-so as evidence is always risky, especially if that person stands to gain from their own story. Any available insight into the hard facts?

sumida sublight:The article makes it sound that he blew the whistle by going to press (not sure if that's actually the case, the article is pretty badly written), rather than just talking to the press afterwards.

If I were a LEO hearing credible threats on the president's life, I'd like to think I'd report it to the Secret Service rather than the 6 o'clock news.

You'd think. On the other hand, TWO people discussing it indicates a conspiracy, possibly of unknown extent. If they were serious about doing it, they probably wouldn't hesitate to kill a guy who had evidence against them. And you never know who is friends with whom across organizations when they occupy the same geographical territory like this. I admit it's a little far-fetched, but he could have felt that going to the media was the only safe way to get the information out. Imagine if you'd called someone at the Secret Service and they said "OK, we'll handle it", and then you never heard anything else about it. Wouldn't you have an itch between your shoulder blades for quite a while after that?

The more I think about it, the more I think I might have been a little paranoid myself in that situation, depending on the tone of what I overheard.